Pope Pius XIin 1930 and Pope Paul VI in 1968 had opportunities to extract the Catholic Church from the debate on birth control options for women. Both Popes had religious councils that suggested women using contraception should be allowed under some circumstances. Both Popes rejected those opinions and strictly forbade women having medical options in preventing pregnancy.

1930 – The Church Takes A Stand

In 1930, the Anglican Communion (the alliance of Churches associated with the Church of England) held their seventh conference known as the Lambeth Conference. This Conference, held once each decade, brought together representatives of the Anglican Churches around the world to discuss religious issues.

At the 7th Lambeth Conference the representatives, by a 193 to 67 (47 abstentions,) passed Resolution 15 that would allow certain methods of contraception provided it was, “…done in the light of the same Christian principles.”

The Catholic Church was not affected by this Resolution; however, Pope Pius XI felt he had to respond to the Conference’s Resolution with his own proclamation on New Year’s Eve the same year. For the first time in Church history, the Pope insisted that the only justifiable reason for sexual relations was for procreation. He said that anytime, “…the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature..”

Pope Pius XI reaction to the Lambeth Conference was obviously his belief of the moral superiority of the Catholic Church, but 38 years later Pope Paul VI was not attempting to respond to actions of other churches. Instead, he was squelching his own committee that had been called to review the teachings of the Church.

Birth Control Guided Away From Vatican II

The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) was convened in October 1962 and ended in December 1966. It was established to assess the role of the Church in modern life. The decisions of the Council resulted in many changes to the Church doctrine, but women’s use of contraceptives was not one of the issues discussed.

Some in the Church wanted to bring the issue of contraception methods into the discussions during Vatican II, but instead, Pope John XXIII established a commission in 1963, that reported directly to him. The task of the commission was to study questions of birth control and population. Pope John XXIII died later that year and Pope Paul VI continued the commission to its completion in 1966.

The commission, by a 64 to 5 vote determined that the use of medical contraceptives was an extension of the method of monitoring a woman’s fertility cycle and was not inherently evil. Information about the report was leaked to the media prior to publication and Catholics around the world began to believe the Church was about to liberalize the teachings regarding the use of birth control.

A Handful of Men Kill Women’s Choice

Despite the findings of the study, a minority report by four priests vehemently opposed the decision. They stated that if the Church’s position was reversed, it would mean the declarations of Pope Pius XI and other church leaders of the past would be seen as false teachings.

Pope Paul VI chose to follow the minority report and rejected the commission’s findings. He reaffirmed the Church’s position that women should not be able to prevent a pregnancy with contraceptives.

Why Did Pope Paul VI Reject the Findings?

The four most likely factors contributing to Pope Paul VI’s rejection are as follows:

The Catholic Church has been consistent in discouraging the idea that worshipers have a personal relationship with God. The Church has preferred that personal choices should be made using the Church to guide them.

A historical perspective in the Church that women are subservient to men and not worthy of positions of religious leadership; therefore, a woman’s choice to want to avoid pregnancy is irrelevant.

Pregnancy is an act of God, not of humans.

Pope Paul VI was not a woman, never married, and rumored to be gay.

It is unlikely that any Pope will ever reconsider the issue of birth control. Note that when Pope Paul VI made his declaration in 1968, the population of the world was 3.5 billion people. The world population is now 7.6 billion.

From the war crimes trials of World War II came a set of rules of human research

Privacy and dignity of the customer or user is not a big concern to business in the post-Internet world. Before a person can use software or a smartphone application (app) they are typically required to consent to an extensive agreement that only a lawyer could understand. Businesses may skip a signed agreement and collect personal information on the customer or user regardless of whether the person knows or consents to the data collection.

This type of collection of data on personal activity is often bought and sold for profit. It raises the question of why the business world is exempt from research restrictions that are applied to all other research involving humans. The possession of personal data also presents the opportunity for abuse of less ethical companies and by political and criminal organizations.

Post-WWII Guidelines For Human Experimentation

Prior to World War II, Germany established a set of standards required in human research. When Hitler came to power he wiped these standards away and Nazi researchers were allowed to experiment as they saw fit.

After World War II trials were held in Nuremberg (or Nürnberg,) Germany to bring justice for the crimes against humanity by Nazi war criminals. Among the crimes were medical experiments performed on prisoners without their knowledge or consent. Many people were harmed and some died as a result of these experiments.

The judges of the trials, moved to action by the testimony, created a set of rules called the Nuremberg Code, to define appropriate research from harmful research. This Code is not law; however, it can be used to determine a legal standard when a researcher violates any of the ten rules of the code. Human research in most civilized nations is governed by the Nuremberg Code.

However, the Nuremberg Code has always been applied to medical and scientific research, not to business situations. In 1947, the idea that business would be invading the privacy of their customers and collecting data on human interactions wasn’t a reality that anyone could envision.

The Codes Governing Human Research

In 1972 a 40-year study of African American men in Alabama, known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, was uncovered. The study was performed by the U.S. Health service and they did not follow the Nuremberg Code. They did not inform the participants that they were part of a syphilis experiment, nor did they tell the patients they were infected with syphilis, and after an effective treatment for syphilis was discovered, they continued to leave the men untreated.

After this incident, a conference was held to establish guidelines for all federal research. That conference created the Belmont Report that established three guidelines:

Respect for persons: protecting the autonomy of all people and treating them with courtesy and respect and allowing for informed consent. Researchers must be truthful and conduct no deception;

Beneficence: The philosophy of “Do no harm” while maximizing benefits for the research project and minimizing risks to the research subjects; and

Justice: ensuring reasonable, non-exploitative, and well-considered procedures are administered fairly — the fair distribution of costs and benefits to potential research participants — and equally.

If a college professor is studying the interaction among college students they cannot collect data on their students without their knowledge, nor can they try different stimulus on their students without their knowledge. All research, even social research, requires oversight by a research committee. Strict guidelines restrict all the aspects of the data collection, and how it is used. This applies to all federal research and all organizations receiving federal subsidies.

Once again, the rules for human research established by the Belmont Report occurred before the Internet was being used by businesses to collect data on consumers.

Business Data Collection 2018

It is common in business, and especially on the Internet, for companies to collect data about their customers or users. The problem is that some of the data has nothing to do with the company or application being used. The organization collects this data to sell to other companies for any use they see fit.

There is a start-up company near Seattle that created a phone app for people to buy and sell personal items. All a person has to do is take a picture of the item they want to sell, post it on the app, set a price, and wait for other users to contact them. It’s a garage sale on a smartphone.

The company received millions of dollars in venture capital, not because the app was expected to make money. The app is free and there is no fee collected on any user transaction. The investors were interested in the data that the app would collect to be sold to other companies.

This is the gold mine of the business world. Save money in advertising by only reaching the people who might need, want, or qualify for the product or service.

Violations of the Nuremberg Code in Business

Under the Nuremberg Code, every business would be required to clearly inform the customer of the data collected, what the data would be used for, and obtain her or his voluntary consent prior to collecting data. The use of the data would have to aim for positive results for society, not just for the financial benefit of the company. The business would also have to prove that it couldn’t be collected in another method.

Data collected would have to be proportion to the humanitarian benefits. It would have to be done by people that understand and are qualified to do the research.

Clearly, the restrictions of the Nuremberg Code are not being followed by most businesses collecting data on their customers. This collection and selling of personal data is so insidious that most people will never know what data is being collected, nor how it is being used to manipulate them.

At this point, there is no oversight of the data being collected. It is an issue that lurks in the background of the business-as-usual environment. It is a practice, like the Tuskeegee Syphilis Experiment, will likely be misused, if it hasn’t been already.

It is the centerpiece of the Trump agenda to keep the subject off Putin’s overthrow of his administration. And just when the topic would be coming back to the KGB agent that seems to be in contact with all the Republican leadership, suddenly, a bone is thrown to the media. Trump’s 2005, rosy tax form…but only two pages. Who gave it to the media? Nobody knows. It just magically appeared.

Trump and his Iraqi-styled minions didn’t even snicker when they scolded the unknown person who ‘illegally’ released his alleged tax document…all two pages. Nothing about the tax form reflects badly on Trump, and that alone casts suspicion that the President who can admit to no wrong, personally selected these two pieces of paper to be ‘anonymously’ delivered to a journalist.

Trump’s tax release has all the cleverness of a Dr. Evil plan

Even David Cay Johnston, the journalist who landed this punt, is suspicious of how he came to obtain this sudden flattering twelve-year-old snapshot of Trump’s financial qualifications. It is too coincidental that a minor aspect of Trump’s tax reporting, that creates a positive impression of his finances, appears with no explanation, no authentication, nor no information as to who is behind the release of the two pages.

Perhaps if this weren’t so blatantly manufactured to change the subject, it wouldn’t be so silly, … but we are talking about Donald Trump and his friend Vladimir Putin.

The one of the Commandments of the Bible of Conservatism is that government should be privatized. This idea has been proven to cost more, create more corruption, and more inefficiencies, and yet it is still on the banners of the conservative fanatics that don’t need facts, because they have faith.

Donald Trump has now taken the Privatization Commandment to a new level: The Presidency of the United States of America. Trump is operating his administration as if he doesn’t report to the public. He uses the government to promote and fund his own private business interests. He doesn’t believe in transparency, and acts as if the government is his private corporation, where information is to be closely guarded, and the media is the enemy.

The model he is using is a return of a King George type of model, where he is the absolute leader that cannot be questioned or challenged, and uses force to impose his will. It is exactly the type of leadership that our country rejected when it declared independence from Great Britain.

This model of secrecy of leadership is almost always used to hide unethical acts. It is even worse than when Richard Nixon tried to cover up the illegal acts of his administration during Watergate. Like Nixon, Trump believes that he is untouchable. Let’s hope he is not.

Terrible! Just found out that Donald Trump had my “wires tapped”! It is outrageous that he would attack my civil liberties and listen in on my conversations. My proof? I said it, so it must be true. It works for Trump.

At least when the little boy cried, “Wolf!” it was for attention. Trump is seeking distraction

Pay no attention to the Communist Spy in my bed!

Donald Trump is the little boy with cookie crumbs on his lips, who denies he ate the forbidden cookie. His, “ignore-the-Russian-President-hiding-behind-the-curtain,” stunt is sadly transparent. His desperation to change the subject with a counter accusation indicates that the Russia connection is worse than anyone suspects.

For those Trump supporters who might admonish me with a, “you don’t know it’s not true,” consider this point. Trump has access to all the information contained in all of our country’s intelligence agencies. Any rational person making such an accusation would also put forth the proof. If it were true, it would be more likely we were tapping Putin’s phone and caught Trump talking to him.

I’ll admit that the ‘rational person’ is at question when we are discussing Donald Trump, but really, he has a credibility void, and a Trump Tweet is just his diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the brain.

Mem Fox – The 70 year-old children’s book author deemed a threat to the US

The seventy year-old children’s book author from Australia was on her way to a conference in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Mem Fox was a pro at travelling. She had entered into the United States over 100 times before, and she was expecting the normal review of her documentation when she arrived at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on February 9.

What she didn’t realize was that she was about to experience her first encounter of Trump’s version of the Nazi SS.

On January 27, Donald Trump began his campaign to unleash a security force to terrorize foreign visitors to the United States of America. His first step was to sign an unannounced Executive Order to ban Muslims from six countries from entering the United States.

This was the signal to immigration officers implementing border control that the rules that held them to a standard of honor and decency were going to be eliminated. Now those agents who joined U.S. Customs for the power and thrill of humiliating people could be unleashed on the public with the complete support of the Holy Trinity of Racism: Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, and Vladimir Putin.

When Ms. Fox entered the United States an immigration officer falsely accused her of having an improper visa, and then began a two-hour detention by officers that felt the glory and power of their ability to humiliate and terrorize. She later explained that, “‘I have never in my life been spoken to with such insolence, treated with such disdain, with so many insults and with so much gratuitous impoliteness.”

I have never in my life been spoken to with such insolence, treated with such disdain, with so many insults and with so much gratuitous impoliteness.

Were this an isolated incident, it might seem to be a fluke, but two days before in Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, Muhammad Ali’s son and his mother were detained by U.S. Customs agents when they returned from Jamaica. Muhammad Ali Jr, unlike Ms. Fox, was born in the United States and had a valid US passport, nevertheless, he was detained for two hours after being asked if he was a Muslim.

These incidents indicate a larger strategy by Trump’s administration. Trump seems to be empowering a group of people with the ability to terrorize and humiliate people, including U.S. citizens with little or no concern for accountability to the people of the United States of America.

Hitler’s Enforcement Force – The Nazi SS

Trump’s plan to build up a force that answers solely to his administration and is given the mission to aggressively humiliate and intimidate groups of non-white, and/or non-Christians is an effective recruiting incentive for the racist elements that brought him to power. It is likely that by the end of this year, a military-style federal police force will be in place to be utilized in any manner deemed necessary for Homeland Security.

Trump’s actions recent actions to an immigration threat that doesn’t exist indicate that he is using the issue to create an independent force of that will operate outside current U.S. laws. This Nazi-like SS (Schutzstaffel) force that will serve to eliminate dissent and ensure a white-dominated authority.

Researching genealogy has relied on family stories, written diaries, and documents. Now it has the truth. DNA. DNA doesn’t lie, it just gives you the facts. Unbiased, unwavering, insensitive facts.

People talk about the dangers of using DNA to research genealogy. DNA might reveal that the stories, diaries, and documents sometimes lie. Sometimes, even a birth certificate lies because the people who created it were there for the birth, not the conception.

On 23 January 2017, I became one of those people who found out that the DNA test disproved everything I had been led to believe about who I was, and to what family I belonged. I found out that the man who raised me as his son, was not my father.

Six decades ago, my mother became pregnant with a man known to her and our family. I was born in December of that year. I looked enough like my mother, that it probably wasn’t too difficult to sell the idea that I was the legitimate child of my father. In addition, the man we believe to be my father was tragically killed in an accident when I was five, so I didn’t really have a chance to interact with him as I grew up.

If it were not for the DNA test, I would have never known…until one of my children took a DNA test. Truth can be relentless.

What Do You Say to the Half-Son?The news was unreal, then surreal, then it got strange. There is no way to describe how it feels to have a fundamental truth about yourself suddenly proven wrong. The displacement of my reality was not a sudden shock, but a creeping wave of unrest and confusion.

Some people might have been hesitant to share this information with others. Those people hate me. I’m not a private or secretive person, and after I realized that I had lived a lie for almost sixty years, I was determined to end the secret as quickly as possible.

Most of the immediate family members of both families have passed away, so other than ‘honor’ of both families, and the memories of the people involved, this was a matter that impacted me and my children. While trying to be sensitive to both families, I posted the news on Facebook.

Mostly, the reaction was stunned silence. I found out later that many people had read the post, but what do you say to someone in my position? I’m willing to bet even Hallmark doesn’t have a card for this situation.

The reaction was typically positive and supportive. There was a suggestion that the DNA test might be wrong, and a couple of people began suggesting that the affair might not have been consensual. I gave a terse response to one of those comments and deleted it.

Who Knew?One of the first questions that occurred to me was, “Who knew, and when did they know it.” It is somewhat of a pointless exercise because most people have passed on, and those still alive who may have known are not likely to implicate themselves in the deception.

I am confident my mother knew, or strongly suspected I was not her husband’s child. Several reactions and responses to questions about my family history seemed indicate she was deliberately vague and at times, almost disruptive to my research.

Among the most obvious oddities was her insistence that my fraternal grandfather was half to three quarters Native American. This was almost always followed by a reference that my coloring, (brown hair, brown eyes, and dark complexion) was Native American. The last time she made this reference, my brother had already proven that as far back to 1803, and beyond there was no Native American blood in the Kiser or Warner family.

The Brutality of DeceptionDeception is an insidious malady. The bigger the deception, the more it infects a person’s sense of well being. I can’t imagine what my mother experienced during a lifetime of keeping this deception going, especially when the man who was most likely my real father died. His sudden death, mixed with the probability he was my father, could not have created a more chaotic mix of emotions for my mother.

As I became an adult I tried to analyze my mother and father’s relationship. It was clear that they were not in a positive emotional relationship. To me it felt more like they were performing the expected roles, but not with any emotional connection. It’s possible that was their behavior around me, but I suspect it was noticed by others.

My interactions with my mother were typically civil, but I would never have considered them warm. I don’t think she treated my brothers any different. That was who she was as a mother.

However, now I have to wonder if she saw me as the child that added complications in her life. Did my presence create a psychological conflict within her? Did she fear that other people might have known and were talking behind her back?

Moving ForwardI can’t imagine what would have happened if the truth would have come out when I was a child, and perhaps it was best for everyone that it didn’t come out, but the collateral damage of maintaining a deception likely affected my mother’s relationships with my father, with the family, and with me. I am disturbed that she didn’t respect me enough to tell me at some point. To deny me the truth was unfair to me and my children.

The lesson of this is that deception can be as destructive as the truth. My mother may have believed she escaped the consequences of her situation by lying and maintaining that lie, but I don’t believe she did. I think she created a hole in her life, and now a lot of people are falling in that hole.

But now it is time to move forward. It is strange, but my last name feels like I am lying every time I say it. I feel I have to say, “My name is Paul Kiser, but actually I’m not a Kiser by blood.” I don’t think I’ll do that when I go through immigration next week, but still, the impulse is there.

Fortunately, my children, and the children of the other family are intrigued by the new family history. As offsetting as this is in the old world of hiding shame and embarrassment, the new world doesn’t end when someone’s decades old indiscretions come to light.

Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders campaigns are rejoicing at the revelations about to be exposed from secret Hillary Clinton emails on a private server, while she was Secretary of State. Among the revelations are:

In 2009, Clinton attempted to humiliate, then Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, by arranging to have him photographed in the nude, riding a horse.

In 2012, Clinton outlined a plan to become President, and use the Girl Scouts of America to send their members door-to-door under the ruse of selling cookies to determine which homes had guns, followed by night raids by Navy Seals to collect the guns.

In 2010, Clinton admitted in an email, that while she was Senator from New York, she conspired to run for President as a ruse to become Secretary of State, where she intended to set up a private email account, rather than using a government email account.

Fox News broke the story today and declared that this scandal will finally end the Clinton campaign to become President of the United States. Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, reacted to the news by saying, “Huh, what?” followed by a scathing, “Okay, great.”

Mitch McConnell said,

“Finally, we not only have the smoking gun on Clinton, we have the powder, the shot, the wading, and that tamper thing that you use to push it all the stuff down the barrel. She not going to be President because she’s going to jail!”

According to sources in the FBI familiar with the emails, the attempt to humiliate Putin was almost thwarted when he refused to take off the pants; however, the photographer decided that an image of Putin’s sagging breasts and small hands were adequate to accomplish the goal.

Apparently, the conspiracy to collect guns from United States citizens was later eliminated when it was determined that gun owners would likely shoot a Girl Scout under the assumption she was a burglar.

In a campaign speech today, Trump said, “There’s going to be a lot more coming out on Clinton’s emails. I know, because, really, I’m God, no, really, I am, and I’m not happy with her.” Sanders responded to questions from reporters about the rumors of the secret emails by saying, “This campaign is about momentum, and the superdelegates….I’m sorry, what was the question?”

TWENTY OH’sIf the 1990’s were a seismic event of technological and social change, the twenty-oh’s is when the tsunami of change hit. Had nothing else happened but the advancement of the Internet, the changes by that alone would have drastically remade the world as we knew it; however, the twenty-oh’s were not content in merely redefining society and the way we communicate, the first decade of the new millennium was going to do an extreme makeover of all our expectations in life. Here are twenty things that made us say Oh!

The Twenty-oh’s began with the most bizarre Presidential election in American history, followed by the most shocking attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, followed by two United States initiated wars that would be fought simultaneously, followed by the loss of the Space Shuttle and its crew on reentry to Earth, followed by an earthquake/tsunami that would kill almost a quarter of a million people in 14 countries in one day, followed by a massacre at Virginia Tech, followed by a near meltdown of our global financial system, followed by an African-American being elected as President.

THE GREAT CONSERVATIVE FAILUREDespite all that happened, it was politics that defined the 2000’s. Keeping with the two-faced Reagan policy of “America Can’t” and money must be taken from the poor and given to the rich, President George Bush took the cost of running two wars off the books so that he could look like he was cutting government spending when he was, in fact, putting the government deeper in debt and running massive deficits.

Behind the scenes, a decade of conservative-driven deregulation in the financial industry created a bad debt bomb that exploded in 2007-08. Almost overnight, America’s economy was devastated by greed and a lack of common sense. People who saw the disaster coming took the attitude that everyone else was unethical, so why should I be the only good person? When the curtain fell on Wall Street, Republicans, who created the environment for the disaster, quietly stepped away and whistling as if they were unaware there was a problem.

Bush 43, was completely out of his league in dealing with the problem. To repair the damage to our economy would require taking actions that was would essentially prove that the Reagan doctrine was the cause of the disaster, and President Bush was not willing to take the necessary actions. Fortunately, Barack Obama had just been elected and, with Bush impotent in action, the 44th President stepped up and began to manage the crisis and establishing a plan of recovery.

The Republican caused disaster did not cause conservatives to humbly acknowledge their failure, but rather pushed them to further deny the facts. As the economy began recovering, conservatives began blaming Democrats for not making the recovery happen faster. As conservative predictions of Democratic policy failure began to be proven wrong, conservatives began raising absurd and meaningless issues to redirect people’s attention (e.g.; Obama was not an American, Obama was a Muslim, Obama had a secret plan to take everyone’s guns away, etc.)

Because the Reagan doctrine was based on white, 1950’s suburban thinking, the hate for President Obama came naturally to the white, male voter. Instead of a political correction for the failed Reagan agenda, conservatives became even more rabid and illogical. By the end of the decade America was heading for defeat at the hands of conservatives who had taken away American prosperity and were unwilling to accept any idea that didn’t match their failed version of the world.

On Friday, March 28, the NBC affiliate in Reno, Nevada (KRNV) again aired a Fox News type report on the 6:00 PM telecast, and this time actually used a Fox News clip. During the ‘A’ Block (top stories,) local news anchor Joe Hart gravely announces:

“….National Correspondent Kristine Frazao reports, some are concerned that this could be a sign of things to come in our country….”

The news clip, manufactured by Sinclair Broadcast Group (SBGI,) which operates KRNV, features Kristine Frazao, who has three years national experience with Russian Television (RT,) and was hired in the past year by Sinclair. She tells the story of a Washington D.C. resident who violated local laws on ammunition ownership, and who had his ex-spouse tattle on him to law enforcement.

The clip starts with Mark Witaschek, explaining his surprise that he had committed a crime. The graphic with his name on-screen is a Fox News logo and banner, indicating the original source of the story. Frazao did not include an interview or statement from the law enforcement agency involved, nor does she offer any other examples of people charged or convicted of the law that Witaschek violated.

Instead Frazao interviews Emily J. Miller of the The Washington Times; who declares that Witaschek is a law-abiding citizen even though he has been convicted of violating the law in Washington D.C.:

“It’s just an outrageous violation of his rights.”

Miller continues and links this one case to a larger conspiracy without any proof:

“This is a pattern in Washington D.C. and states that are anti-gun, which is to go after the law-abiding who are exercising their Second Amendment Rights….”

Miller, is a Senior Editor for The Washington Times, which has an interesting history and has a strong conservative bias.

Founded by the Unification Church in 1982, The Washington Times was once lauded by Ronald Reagan as the only newspaper that told the truth to the American people. In 2002, Church Founder, Sun Myung Moon stated:

“The Washington Times is responsible to let the American people know about God” and “The Washington Times will become the instrument in spreading the truth about God to the world.”

In March of 2013, the Herring Broadcastingannounced that it would team with Miller’s Washington Times newspaper to create One America News, a conservative cable news network to rival Fox News.

Frazao’s uses a source that is as biased as asking a Boston Red Sox fan to discuss the negative aspects of the New York Yankees. By using Miller as her primary source, Frazao betrayed any aspect of responsible investigative journalism.

The final 41 seconds of the news clip, which may or may not have been part of KRNV’s live broadcast¹, does include Emily Tisch Sussman, Campaign Director for the Center for American Progress. Sussman represents a liberal viewpoint; however, during that 41 seconds she is edited down to two sound bytes of four seconds and ten seconds. The rest of the time Frazao speaks for her in a voice over. Of the two sound bytes, it was difficult to determine what questions Sussman was responding to because the editing didn’t seem to match Frazao’s edited-in commentary.

This was at least the second time in one week where Sinclair Broadcast Group’s National Correspondent has presented a story that had an overt conservative bias (See article.)

NEXT: KRNV does it again. (Read article) TO BE PUBLISHED 7 APRIL 2014 at 6:00 AM

(¹I watched the live broadcast and I don’t remember the last 41 seconds that appears in the on-line clip of the ‘A’ Block. If it was included it would have put the broadcast 34 to 65 seconds longer than the two previous night’s broadcast, and 94 seconds longer than the next two weekday 6 PM broadcasts. At 41 seconds, Kristine Frazao seems to wrap up the piece, and the next 41 seconds could have easily been edited out for time on the original live broadcast.)

No longer can anyone expect to build a lifelong career with one organization, nor is that considered healthy for the individual or the company. A person is now his or her own commodity. He or she must expect to build their own skills and reputation as an individual on the open market rather than as corporate employee number 8675309.

In this Brave New Working World a person should be prepared to say ‘no’ to antiquated elements of 20th Century employment, not only because they are inappropriate, but because they indicate that employer is unaware of their failure to be competitive in the 21st Century. Benefits and perks that were meant to tie a person to one organization no longer make sense in a world where ‘permanent employee’ has been replaced by ‘contract labor.’

Here are ten employment offers and requests that should be declined from an employer and cause you to re-evaluate your working relationship with a company:

No. 10 – Retirement BenefitsIt should be obvious that any company offering retirement benefits either does not understand today’s working world or is trying to offer something that they know you will never receive. Better to have the money now and invest than pretend you’ll still be with the company when you retire.

The company giveth and taketh away access to your email

No. 9 – The Company Email AccountYou many have to use the company email when corresponding with others in the company, but always ask yourself, “If the company decided to lay me off today and they ended my access to my email account, what information would I lose?” What about that email from the senior executive that ordered you to overcharge your customer? Every email sent to your company email account should be forwarded to a private account and blind copy any company emails you send to your private account. This protects you and the company from the unethical corporate manager.

No. 8 – The Company CarWhen I was growing up my uncle worked for an oil tool business and he had a company car. I thought that was the coolest perk in the world. While it is a rare perk in today’s world, it should be declined in most situations. The problem with the full-time company car is that it becomes a liability if a better employment opportunity arises. Suddenly you’re faced with buying a new car in order to accept a better job.

The company cell phone comes with chains attached

No. 7 – The Company Cell PhoneMany people fail to realize what a company cell phone represents. It is a chain that ties the employee to the employer 24/7/365. A boss may hesitate to call a private cell phone, but have no problem calling the phone they are paying for at 3 AM. Many jobs require an employee to be accessible, but you are better off with your own phone than be indentured by a company cell phone.

No. 6 – Giving Your Employer Your Social Media PasswordsThere are questions as to whether it is legal for an employer to demand an employee’s passwords to his or her Facebook, Twitter, and other Social Media passwords. The bottom line is that you do not want to work for a company that wants this level of control on your life. It will only go downhill from there.

No 5 – Restricting Free Speech (The NDA)In an exercise with students in a graduate program, I purchased the fictional company they worked for and I was interviewing them to determine who to keep and who to let go. As part of this exercise I gave each of them an outrageous NDA contract (seeKco NDA) to sign. In almost every case, the Master’s program students signed it, most without question.

A company’s has a right to protect its reputation, but employers should be under the burden to gain the loyalty, trust, and respect of their employees so that they would not dream of talking smack about their workplace. If an employee is ready to bad mouth the source of their income then either the employer hired the wrong person, or the employer has failed to treat their employee as an important asset. In either case, it is the employer, not the employee who shoulders the burden of the failure.

No. 4 – Intellectual PropertyIf you have been consigned to produce something tangible for someone, then you have agreed to surrender it once it has been created and delivered; however, many companies are claiming ownership of any work done by an employee as their own intellectual property. Nothing could be more disrespectful to a human than to treat them as a machine that is only useful as a tree from which they pick and enjoy the fruit. A business that values their team would never have to be concerned about the issue of intellectual property because each team member’s work would be a source of pride and celebration. The important element in any organization is the person who creates the work, not the work itself.

Before you sign away your right to maintain ownership of your work you should ask if you want your give away your legacy of achievement to those who didn’t do the work?

The Affordable Care Act is emancipation for the worker

No. 3 – Health BenefitsAmerica has millions of people who continue to work for an employer primarily because they need or want the health insurance offered by the company. As an employer do you want people to only be working for you because of the health benefit perk?

The biggest impact that the Affordable Care Act will have on America is to free people to work for people they want to work for, not those who have the critical health care benefit he or she needs.

No. 2 – Pay For PerformanceWhen someone attempts to quantify a job or project they sacrifice common sense for greed. The need to meet the measured goals forces an employee to ignore important aspects of work that can’t be measured or quantified. Pay For Performance assumes the Ends always justifies the Means, which is rarely true in the business world, despite what greedy executives and investors think. Almost always customer satisfaction is at risk under Pay For Performance standards because a customers true satisfaction cannot be measured by questionnaires, surveys, nor sales. In every case the wise employee will figure out how to exploit the system and defeat the true purpose of the evaluation tool.

Pay For Performance systems are lose-lose scenarios for everyone and a company that relies on them does not understand how to truly motivate and reward its team; therefore, you should avoid the trap they are setting for you, your customers, and themselves.

No. 1 – The NCAThe non-compete agreement or NCA is the one indicator that proves only fools work for the employer, and there are plenty of fools out there. You shouldn’t be one of them.

An NCA basically eviscerates your career by not allowing you to continue working if you leave the current company. In today’s world that can be a death sentence. Your skills and experience are laid to waste by an NCA and you should never agree to it, nor should you consider working for someone who asks you to sign one.

My apologies for those of you who received an email alert regarding the article titled: Why ‘Managing the Message’ Doesn’t. It will be published this week; however, due to an error on my part it was briefly available late on Friday.

Currently I have three articles that will be published this week. They are as follows:

David Petraeus knows about public image, but he believed an alias online was not public

Men my age have been taught the we should have two personalities. There is the ‘professional’ persona that we wear in our public/business life, then there’s the ‘real’ personality that we only show when we are off the stage. That worked when there was a clear division between public and private life. For most of my life I knew that the person I knew at work was not the same as the person who was in the backyard with a beer in his hand.

A baseball cap and polo shirt don’t mask the person, why would an email alias?

The Internet changed all that, but somehow older men didn’t get the memo. When we found out we could create an email account like ‘secretagent007’, ‘mysteryman’, ‘mrinvisible’, etc., we really believed we could say anything we want, do anything we wanted without anyone knowing who we really were. I admit, it is a seductive concept that our professional/public persona could remain unknown online, but the fact is that anything we say or do online is recorded in history and will always be attached to us.

The Petraeus Lesson is simply this: USE YOUR REAL NAME EVERY TIME EVERYWHERE. Don’t allow yourself to be sucked in that YOU are smarter than every one of the 7,079,446,910 people on Earth. Never, ever, ever log on, create an email, or register for a social media site using a false name. If you have an email that doesn’t use your real name then get rid of it and get another one. This is 2012, and you need to know that what you say and do online is public. Period.

I know we older, white males were raised to believe in two personas, but it is a myth that we need to get over. It’s not a privacy issue, it’s a ‘am-I-smart-or-am-I-stupid’ issue.

Southwest Airlines (SWA) has been talking about in-flight WiFi service for over four years, but today most Southwest passengers will find that going online is still something that happens on the ground, not in the air. Even if a Southwest plane has the ‘WiFi hump’ and is labeled as a WiFi HotSpot, it doesn’t mean the service will be turned on during the flight.

Southwest’s goal of in-flight Internet service has had its challenges in getting airborne. A brief history of their communications on the topic:

“We are very seriously exploring that. We’d be acutely interested in the cost of doing that. It would be a very exciting development if we could make that work.”¹

A Southwest Plane with the WiFi 'hump' satellite antenna located on the top of the plane in front of the tail

44 months ago – Southwest announces it will be testing passenger WiFi service on four planes in the summer using Row 44 as it’s Internet service provider.²

25 months ago – Southwest announces that testing is completed and that they will start equipping planes with WiFi in the Spring of 2010.³

20 months ago – Senior Vice President of Marketing and Revenue Management Dave Ridley states in SWA’s blog, Nuts About Southwest, admits, “… the road to onboard wi-fi has been a long one…,”¹¹ but said that starting the 2nd quarter of 2010, SWA will start installing WiFi on 15 planes a month and increasing it to 25 planes a month. He added:

“…we estimate that our full fleet of more than 540 planes will be outfitted with wi-fi service by early 2012.”

11 months ago – SVP Ridley announces in the Nuts About Southwest blog that only 32 planes have WiFi installed and he adds:

“…Kelly said he feels “very comfortable” with the “2013 timeframe” for fleetwide Wi-Fi installation…”¹³

Last week, after two separate incidents of the WiFi service being turned off on WiFi designated Southwest planes, uniformed Southwest employees had different explanations of the status of the company’s on board Internet service. One claimed that the system ‘worked yesterday’ and another said confidentially that their were problems with the Internet service provider and that the Southwest was no longer using them.

Howard Lefkowitz, Chief Commercial Officer

Not so, says Chief Commercial Officer Howard Lefkowitz of Row 44. Lefkowitz, the former CEO ofVegas.comwho joined Row 44 about a year ago, said in a telephone interview that Row 44 is still Southwest’s Internet and entertainment provider and that they are continuing to equip the planes. He said that “…over 100…” planes now have WiFi Internet service and thousands of people are using it everyday. Lefkowitz said he would check into why two of the WiFi equipped flights were not in service last week.

Southwest Airlines was contacted by phone and email, but did not respond to requests for information.

ªGary Kelly’s original remarks were recorded in the Dallas Morning News; however, that link is broken. The link appears in an April 19, 2007, blog in WNN WiFi Net News. The remarks are from another blog referenced below on the same date.

One of the hottest topics in the world of employment is whether or not an employer should monitor his or her Internet activities. This is a subject I’ve written about before, but it is an issue that is still emerging and has yet to have any significant case-law to provide guidance to employers.

It is well-known that a large number of employers perform a ‘Google’ search on the Internet before they hire an applicant, but now companies are feeling the need to continue to monitor an employee’s Internet activities after hire. Many experts, especially those involved in employee liability prevention support an employer’s right to monitor an employee’s Internet activities even when those activities occur off-duty and offsite. The logic is that it is prudent to aware of anything an employee might say or do that could embarrass the employer, or any indication that the employee might take an action that might involve the company and its facilities.

These are rational arguments, but I believe that monitoring an employee’s activities is opening the door to bigger liability issues. Sound odd? Here’s the scenario I see happening in three Acts.

Should the Employer be Big Brother?

Act One: A busy-body employer or manager casually checks his or her employee’s Facebook, MySpace, and/or Twitter accounts. The employer might even do a Google search on an employee from time to time. When the employer or manager finds something that they see as objectionable they confront the guilty employee and take the proper action. It becomes known throughout the company (and the employee’s family) that the employer monitors its employee’s personal Internet activity.

Act Two: An employee has been reprimanded for content they have posted on the Internet. Six months later the same employee posts information on the Internet that he is considering suicide and describes in detail how he is going to kill himself. Two weeks later the employee carries out the suicide as described. The family is aware the employer monitors the employee’s Internet activity and sues the employer claiming that the employer should have reasonably been aware of the planned suicide and taken action.

Act Three: Companies find themselves with two polar opposite choices. Either the company does not monitor their employee’s Internet activities or the company assigns resources to constantly monitor the Internet on every employee to insure they capture any relevant data for which the company should take action.

I was trained in Human Resources under the policy that what the employee did on her or his own time was off-limits to the employer unless it had a direct impact the job performance. That policy has had to be adjusted in a world where work and off-duty time can often be hard to differentiate, and where drug testing, researching credit scores and background checks have become standard operating procedure for many companies. However, an employee’s personal Internet activities is almost impossible to track in a society that is increasing involved in hours of daily online social networking. The question is whether an employer wants to be liable for monitoring its employees 24/7/365 and being held responsible for taking the appropriate action, or whether the employer would be better served by not being sucked into liability issues that can be avoided by simply not playing the role of Big Brother ?

I have had several discussions with people who have a fear of the Internet and Social Media tools. The common issue that arises is regarding privacy, which to me is an interesting concern. Being concerned that you’re giving up your privacy if you use the Internet is, to me, a Homer Simpson moment.

I’m not sure where anyone got the idea that writing something and sending it out over a public system of servers, visible to almost anyone, and recorded for all time would be private, but for those of you who have that impression, let me read you your rights:

Your Right to Privacy on the Internet

You have a right to stay silent.

You have a right to not participate in Internet/online activities.

You have a right to consult an attorney before you participate in any Internet/online activities.

You have the right to stay in your house, block up the windows and never go out into public.

If you choose to participate in any Internet/online activities, anything you say can and will:

be considered a reflection of your public image

be available for anyone in the world to access

be recorded for the remainder history of the civilized world

be used against you now, or in the future

If you choose to NOT participate that will NOT prevent:

People from talking about you on the Internet

People using your image for almost any purpose

The Internet, and Social Media tools like Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and LinkedIn allow people to communicate in a way we’ve never been able to communicate before. It is not intended for private discussions, but it is an open forum. That makes some people uncomfortable, and while I understand that, I also have to wonder why people have a need to say something they are not willing to say publicly?

There is still a time and place for a personal, one-to-one conversation to discuss matters between the two people, but isn’t that better to be done in person? Privacy is not what one should expect when using the Internet, but it is the place for ideas and concepts to be discussed in an open environment that values the input of all. Yes, sometimes the stupid people have louder voices and win the day, but at some point people will look back and learn who was behaving stupidly and who was really correct.

Here are four things I try to keep in mind when participating in online activities:

Sometimes I’m going to say something stupid. I’m human and I will have to buck up and take responsibility for it.

Sometimes people are going to ridicule what I have to say. That doesn’t mean they are correct and it may be a reflection of their poor judgement, not mine.

By participating I will learn more than I could if I did not participate. Sometimes the lesson will be difficult, but that will usually mean I will learn more.

Social Media is not the alpha and omega of life, but it is one of the most powerful communication tools ever conceived.